It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Serapis - a genetically engineered Hybrid?

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


On mummies, one source I read long ago wondered if the original beasties were eaten and fakes put in place and sold off as the real thing.

I would presume a nice piece of steak was a bit rare (no pun intended) to most people in Egypt.

It reminds me of the faked cocoa beans that have been found in mesoamerica, the bean hollowed out and then filled with fine sand and sealed with wax

[edit on 29/9/08 by Hanslune]




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Ah, Aboriginal myth. First off, the case in point you're talking about doesn't, in and of itself, constitute myth. The Aborigines have been dwelling on Australia for at least 40,000 years. Having no writing, they preserved everything through mnemonic oral tradition. Part of this oral tradition is that of the songline - sort of a verbal map of the terrain. Songlines were inherited, traded, etc - they were a big part of Aboriginal myth and culture. Now, we take a hugely ancient culture with a mnemonic system that creates detailed maps to remember through the use of word, song, and dance, and we put this culture on a continent that hasn't changed much at all in the last several million years (barring anthropogenic grasslands via aboriginal burning) and, well, I'm not at all surprised that they're able to point out what the place looked like seventeen thousand years ago. Hell, most of it probably looks identical.

Now if you want to talk about a myth being true, and use the aborigines to back you up, prove to the world that the stones, trees, watering holes and other landmarks along the Songlines are, in fact, the ancestors of the Aborigines and sleeping beings of the Dreamtime. Then we've got a myth equals reality thing on our hands.

While you're at it, you might want to look up the difference between a myth and a legend



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Byrd, Hanslune, WalkingFox, here are some Definitions:

Definition: Euhemerism


method of interpretation, known as Euhemerism, that treats mythological accounts as a reflection of actual historical events shaped by retelling and traditional mores


Definition: Ancient Astronaut Theory


Ancient astronaut theories or paleocontact are various proposals that intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth and that this contact is linked to the origins or development of human cultures, technologies and/or religions. Some of these theories suggests that the deities from most — if not all — religions are actually extraterrestrial beings, and their technologies were taken as evidence of their divine status.[1][2]



Definition: Extrapolation


In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Not necessary as the opening post quotes historians

Whaaa?

The opening post quotes VonDaniken at length and at his worst.

Harte



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Indeed Occams razor wants me to take the most simple explanation when viewing pictures of Hybrids and discovering tombs with Hybrids in them: Hybrids!

Seriously folks, get up to speed with space-age-thought.


How is the achievement of a human-animal hybrid the "most simple" explanation?

That would be an extraordinarily complicated process. Far, far more complicated than simply throwing some animal bones in with some human bones.

Harte



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


In the opening post Manetho and Strabon are quoted.

Take your deflection-tactics elsewhere



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte


How is the achievement of a human-animal hybrid the "most simple" explanation?

That would be an extraordinarily complicated process. Far, far more complicated than simply throwing some animal bones in with some human bones.

Harte


Throwing bones together and smashing them and then taking the time to embalm and mummify them makes no sense whatsoever. None.

You also provide zero evidence for that having happened. There is however evidence for genetic engineering....plenty of it (see OP among other things).






[edit on 30-9-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating,

You realize you're being called on to defend the points made in the OP, yes? You can't just keep pointing back to it whenever you're questioned. We've all read it. Apparently a fair number of us think it's bunk, and want something more, oh, meaty.

Smashing a bunch of bones and wrapping them up together in the shape of a bull is pretty strange. It might not make a lot of sense to us. But this is, evidently, exactly what happened here. Wild speculation doesn't change the evidence at hand.

And again, a "hybrid" creature of this sort would have no recognizable remains. Instead of asking "Why are all these different bones jumbled together?" you would be asking "What sort of hideous monstrosity is this?! accompanied by photos of a hideous man-bull skeleton.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating,

You realize you're being called on to defend the points made in the OP, yes? You can't just keep pointing back to it whenever you're questioned. We've all read it. Apparently a fair number of us think it's bunk, and want something more, oh, meaty.



What would be the point of arguing with you and a few others here, as you believe anything related to the ancient-astronaut-theory to be bunk and "impossible" beforehand?

Trying to convince someone who has already made up his/her mind beforehand is a huge waste of energy.

Thats why Im not going to repeat the same points in every thread but simply post new data for the people interested in the ancient-astronaut-possibility.

Whether or not these are indicators of Hybrids or just "works of art", as Byrd proposed, is a matter of interpretation.

And guess what: I know how you will interpret something, before I even post it.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Nice information, Skyfloating. Sounds credible that hybrids may have existed in Ancient Egypt.

Some Archaeologists about a year ago came out with information that there was evidence that Centaurs may have existed in ancient Greece. So there is at least the POSSIBILITY of this happening.

As for the "argument" going on here---I chalk it up to two different ways of interpreting evidence. One wants an actual BODY, the other side is willing to speculate on various things to come up with a possible solution. One side wants to use the inductive method (evidence, then hypothesis) while the other side has the deductive method (hypothesis, then evidence).
I would put you in the inductive side. You and Francis Bacon.
Both sides put up good points. Makes you think at least.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   


And guess what: I know how you will interpret something, before I even post it


And we can say the same about you to Sky. LOL Kettle meet pot

The one big difference between us though is if evidence is presented that would show that X is now Y I can easily change over to believing that. You cannot as your belief is faith based. My evidence based belief is far more flexible. Example. On the Osirion I orginially held the idea that it was an old structure repaired by Sety. Having relooked at the information (I last looked at the information maybe 25 years ago) I've changed my mind to it being a Sety production made in an old style.

I don't think the AAT is impossible I just think its unproven



[edit on 30/9/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Ah Sky you DID use Von Daniken in the OP, I don't quite understand why you are denying it - or what the point of doing so does for your standing amongst rational beings. I'm sure you have some interesting way of explaining this so we look forward to it.

Definition of quote



To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



This article was compiled and written with the help and combination of a chapter in the groundbreaking 1984 book “Eyes of the Sphinx” by Erich von Daniken, the help of Wikipedia-digging and filling in some blanks with logic.




Researcher Erich von Daniken writes (very roughly and loosely translated by me)

Imagine ......large sniparooni .....mean?




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Two false claims

I am glad you guys are responding in the way you are, because it gives the readership an opportunity to study tactics of diversion and deflection.

1. It is not true that my views are unchanging/inflexible. Due to the posts of ATS-member Byrd in a recent thread on Pyramid-Inscriptions I changed the view I had before reading his post. This happens many times a week.

2. I did not deny that I quoted Daniken. I denied that I did not quote historians.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Two false claims




I am glad you guys are responding in the way you are, because it gives the readership an opportunity to study tactics of diversion and deflection.


Hans: Yes why are you doing that - it rather wastes time

1. It is not true that my views are unchanging/inflexible. Due to the posts of ATS-member Byrd in a recent thread on Pyramid-Inscriptions I changed the view I had before reading his post. This happens many times a week.



Well excellent


2. I did not deny that I quoted Daniken. I denied that I did not quote historians.




Daniken is not a historian, far far from it



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Please show me exactly where I said Daniken is a historian. Exactly.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Our little misunderstanding seem to focus on this previous posting




Not necessary as the opening post quotes historians


Harte returned




Whaaa?

The opening post quotes VonDaniken at length and at his worst.


You might want to go back there and answer Harte's question

So for me why did you quote Daniken?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I quoted, among others, Manetho. Thats a historian. I never said Daniken is a historian.

(yawn).



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I quoted, among others, Manetho. Thats a historian. I never said Daniken is a historian.

(yawn).


Given your request that Hans show you "exactly" where you claimed Von Daniken was a historian, please allow me to pose a similarly-styled question to you.

Where "exactly" did you quote any historian in the O.P.?

You didn't.

Harte



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Alright cherry-pickers: I actually wrote the whole piece myself. But I put some of it into external-quote tags because it is based on a Daniken chapter and I wanted to give credit where credit is due. That is, I translated, but not word by word. The writing is mine.

Dont get lost in petty details guys



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Please show me exactly where I said Daniken is a historian. Exactly.



Originally posted by Skyfloating
Dont get lost in petty details guys


Please take your own advice. Exactly.

Harte



new topics




 
50
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join